Causeless complicity

I argue, contrary to standard claims, that accomplice liability need not be a causal relation. One can be an accomplice to another’s crime without causally contributing to the criminal act of the principal. This is because the acts of aid and encouragement that constitute the basis for accomplice liability typically occur in contexts of under- and over-determination, where causal analysis is confounded. While causation is relevant to justifying accomplice liability in general, only potential causation is necessary in particular cases. I develop this argument through the example of the role of U.S. legal officials in abetting the acts of unlawful interrogation that have taken place since 2001. I also suggest that there may be a limited justification for ex post ratificatory accomplice liability.

被害人行为介入下的因果关系——评凤凰少女跳楼案

因果关系的判断在刑法理论上是一直颇具争议的问题,司法实践中对因果关系的判断也存在疑难。在危害行为引起危害结果的过程中,介入了被害人自己行为时,应当采用相当因果关系说,站在客观的立场来判断刑法的因果关系。同时,需要对实行行为本身的危险性、实行行为和介入行为对结果的作用力、介入行为的异常性进行分析,以便从整体上把握因果关系本身的相当性。     

谈证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事诉讼

长期以来,我国证券市场侵权诉讼立法以及司法实践都处于滞后状态,甚至一度出现了暂不受理此类案件的情形。但在加入WTO后,我国明显加快了证券市场立法步伐。随着立法的不断完善,在司法审判实践中要求更好地予以贯彻执行。证券市场虚假陈述民事侵权案件是法院在受理的案件中较复杂的、专业性、技术性很强的案件。涉及到一系列证券专业知识及技术。因此,新出台的《规定》对该类案件中原、被告的确定、被告的归责责任、因果关系认定、诉讼模式、前置程序、赔偿额的确定等方面作了详细的规定。     

美国虚假陈述民事诉讼因果关系的认定及启示

虚假陈述与一般侵权行为相比具有不同的特点,投资者往往难以证明侵权者虚假陈述行为与所受损失之间的因果关系,因此对因果关系的认定应当采用与一般侵权法不同的方法。本文简要介绍了美国对虚假陈述民事诉讼中因果关系认定作出的改革。美国法院采用目标认定法和市场欺诈理论,减轻了投资者对被告的虚假陈述行为与其所受损害之间因果关系的证明责任,从而极大地保护了投资者利益。我国虚假陈述民事诉讼司法解释虽然部分地借鉴了美国的做法,但仍存在不足,需要进一步完善。     

产品警示缺陷若干问题研究——以美国产品责任法为背景

警示缺陷意味着产品警示适当性的缺失。适当的产品警示在内容、语言、设计以及位置方面均需满足一定的要求,而且还应当排除不必要警示的干扰。警示缺陷的认定采用风险-效用的权衡分析与消费者合理期待标准相结合的方法。在警示缺陷诉讼中,过失责任为适当的归责原则;因果关系的证明是追究生产者警示缺陷责任必须具备的前提,生产者可以主张特定的抗辩事由来对抗产品最终用户的权利要求。     

论共同危险行为的构成要件——以《侵权责任法》第10条为中心

《侵权责任法》第10条规定的是共同危险行为。该条的规范目的在于减轻受害人因果关系证明上的困难。在解释共同危险的构成要件与免责事由时不能偏离该规范目的。除基本的构成要件外,共同危险行为有两项重要的构成要件,一为共同危险人参与实施了对受害人权益有损害之危险的行为;二为因果关系不明,即无法确定具体的侵权人。此外,共同危险行为人之间不存在意思联络也是共同危险行为的消极构成要件,它能有效地将共同危险与其他共同侵权区分开来。     

Interpretation,judgement and dialogue: a hermeneutical recollection of causal analysis in critical terrorism studies

ABSTRACT

This article problematises Critical Terrorism Studies’s (CTS) seeming reluctance to engage in causal explanation. An analysis of the meta-theoretical assumptions on causation in both orthodox and critical terrorism studies reveals that the latter’s refusal to incorporate causal analysis in its broader research agenda reproduces – despite its commitment to epistemological pluralism – the former’s understanding of causation as the only sustainable one. Elemental to this understanding is the idea that causation refers to the regular observation of constant conjunction. Due to the positivist leanings of such a conception, CTS is quick to dismiss it as consolidating Orthodox Terrorism Studies’s lack of critical self-reflexivity, responsibility of the researcher, and dedication towards informing state-led policies of counterterrorism. Drawing on recent work in the philosophy of science and International Relations, this article advances an alternative understanding of causation that emphasises its interpretative, normative and dialogical fabric. It is therefore argued that CTS should reclaim causal analysis as an essential element of its research agenda. This not only facilitates a more robust challenge against Orthodox Terrorism Studies’ conventional understanding of causation but also consolidates CTS’s endeavour of deepening and broadening our understanding that (re)embeds terrorist violence in its historical and social context.     

保险法上的因果关系认定与司法推理——以意外死亡保险为例

保险法上的因果关系认定,其目的在于界定保险人的赔付责任范围,其背景是保险合同已对保险人的承保范围和除外责任都做出了规定。事实上,在保险案件中,法院在认定因果关系时,往往已融入了对保险合同条款的价值判断。在意外死亡保险中,有关因果关系认定的司法实践充分说明了这一点。在当代社会,法院在认定保险法上的因果关系时,应遵循保护被保险人的合理期待的原则。     

侵权责任的证成:基于立法、学理和法院判决的考察

过错、不法等概念都是判断或评价的结果,意在说明人是理性的,要对自由意志负责的抽象观念。实际上,过错需要依据违反特定义务的行为这一事实加以推断方能确定,与之有关的抗辩也可以用未违反特定义务,或对方违反了对他自己的注意义务等理由来进行。因而一定程度上,可以抛开过错概念,仅根据当事人是否负有和违反了注意义务来判断其应否承担责任,并根据损害的程度确定责任的大小。对因果关系的讨论,在一般侵权案件中,因事实简单直白故可以省略;而在无过错规则类型案件(随着过错概念的舍弃,这类案件也要更名)中,其具有更为广大的适用余地。当然,因果关系概念有必要进一步细化。